Whiny Political Tract
In my last post, I linked to a friend who called me "exasperatingly liberal." I'd spent the whole week mulling over the Imperial energy policies (woohoo! Let's all take a break from homework to think!), and I put this whole rant aside for a few days to reconsider.
I still believe most of what is here, but I'm not as angry and determined about it as I was last week. I think that it's more interesting in an unedited form (these are basically notes I made for myself), and, after all, I'm trying to achieve some level of deeper interaction with you, Gentle Reader, so here it is.
And for the record, I had this idea before I read Thomas Friedman's column, but I pretty much agree with him.
Here's what I'd like to see from the upcoming Presidential Domestic Debate:
An economic policy which shifts the Imperial economy away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources of energy, effective immediately.
A Step-By-Step Guide to Reducing Oil Dependence
1) Adjust Demand: Ronnie says "Supply Side"
Cut off demand for oil at the consumer level by increasing the price per gallon to unreasonable rates, and make sure that they stay that way for a long time. First, enact a higher Federal Gas Tax. Second, force the States to enact minimum additional charges as a percentage of the Federal Gas Tax; let them spend most of this money at their discretion.
Second, increase the price per gallon by restricting supply. Boycott oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran (which we already are), and other countries which disagree with our policies. This is not really such a bad idea: it's a great way to try to pry some human rights reforms out of notoriously negligent governments. Make the human rights trade penalties cumulative and compounding. (Maybe begin with import ratios and tariffs, then work up to full economic disengagement.) Set uncomfortably optimistic goals and hope for real change. Let the U.N., W.T.O., and W.H.O. arbitrate disputes over whether these targets have been achieved.
The point is to drive the price of gasoline and other fossil fuels up. When they stop being cost-effective, fossil fuels will be abandoned wholesale. The trick is balance: do not go too slowly, or else the economy will adjust to a higher nominal energy rate; but do not rush, either, or else the economy could stall out with unknowable consequences.
2) Invent Alternatives: Give Peas a Chance
Spend all this new revenue on developing alternative fuel sources. This would probably be pretty obvious, but it may be trickier than we can imagine. It would be critical to ensure that the Gas Tax revenues and tariffs did not end up in the General Fund, but that they are instead used exclusively to promote energy alternatives and enforce energy policy.
Attack the problem of an alternative energy economy from both the public and private sectors. Hand out cash hand-over-fist to anyone doing research on this issue (and don't forget the Humanities -- understanding the economics and sociology of the economy change will be at least as important as having it happen quickly). Get the Imperial labs to hack out the basic science: what sources are the most practical, give the best yield, etc. Then throw the ball to the private sector to make the technology affordable and efficient. Set high standards on efficiency, pollution, and cost and make sure that goals are met. (It's important that the new technology be greener, cheaper, and more readily available than the old.)
In the process, do not shortchange research options. The government should retain the rights to all technologies until a public implementation has become commonplace, when the technology (or technologies) must enter the public domain. This allows market competition to progress at an accelerated pace and will prevent energy monopolies from controlling a new energy economy. (On the other hand, once economic changeover has been completed, it is vital that companies be given the opportunity to maintain their own proprietary patents -- otherwise, production and quality will stall.)
3) Adoption: Twins from China
With the money left over from the Gasoline Funds (if there is any) goes to subsidizing the new Alternative Energy Economy. Money goes to public transportation systems making the energy switch, citizens who want to convert their homes and cars, and small companies to convert their infrastructure. Pay for half of all fuel-station conversions, if necessary.
Moreover, make this technology available to the rest of the world.(1)
The purpose of a quick adoption policy would be to get the Imperial economy back on track as quickly as possible, obviously. However, a potential side effect could be the a resurgence in Imperial manufacturing and technology preeminence. After all, we could let China develop the technology first, but then they would get all the licensing fees, wouldn't they?
4) The Trade-Offs: Cataclysmic Economic Events and You
The possibilities for collapse in this idea are numerous. First, the Federal government has never had this much control over the American economy at any time in history. This process would create a temporary government monopoly in the energy sector, something that is certainly a political liability. Furthermore, Congress does not have the necessary independence to unilaterally destroy the current energy systems -- the energy lobby would quash it in committee, long before the plan came to a vote.
Secondly, a disruption in the process would leave the Empire without any Energy Economy, with potentially disastrous, unknowable consequences. During the adjustment period, transportation systems, public services, and even government could possibly be disrupted. Certainly, the initial squeeze on oil prices would drive the airline industry to the brink of bankruptcy (again), and would likely destroy the airline industry as we know it today. Tourism, goods transport, and other service industries would likely be severely hit, although the long-term gains from cheap, renewable energy would probably offset any short-term losses (over 10 years, or so).
Finally, if this Shock Treatment did not work, left a bizarre hodge-podge of proprietary, incompatible systems which prevented consumers from traveling, using simple appliances, it would result in a total collapse. Although this is the accepted status quo of the computer industry (different, incompatible standards, various levels of adoption, and a cost which prices the poor out of ownership), energy would definitely prove to be more basic and much more consequential.
5) The Benefits
An environmentally friendly, socially equitable, cheap, readily available, and globally available energy source would change the world in ways we cannot imagine, but here are some quick points:
a) World Politics -- the end of OPEC; the fall of the Oil Kingdoms of the Middle East, and possibly a subsequent détente between Israel and the Arab world;
b) World Economics -- egalitarian pricing would ensure expansion of energy-dependent services in the Third World, including health care and transportation;
c) Imperial Politics -- a substantial boost in the power of environmentalists, with the possibility of a major coalition of "Green" candidates within one or both parties;
d) Information Technology -- internet, TV, and telephone access to billions of people around the world; the internet would triple in content and usage (assuming equal access by the 2 billion people who live in "wired" countries today);
Over the short term, an alternative economy would allow the Empire to withdraw from the Middle East. This would go a long way towards paving the way for a more moderate Arab world. Over the short term, the current Oil Kingdoms would be replaced by radical regimes, but as oil supply diminished, governments there would be forced to modernize and diversify their economies, which would bring about moderation in the long run. The ultimate goal would be a renunciation of terrorism and the adoption of human rights in even the most conservative areas of the world. The catch is that no government would have no choice: if a renewable energy technology was available, the people of every country would demand access to it.
A) Caveat: Abandon Iraq
And do it tomorrow. Better yet, do it yesterday. Iraq is a monetary sinkhole that will bankrupt the Empire if not controlled. The best position in the short term is to abandon the situation because:
I) If an insurgent government controls oil production, either a) we will refuse to buy oil from them, or b) they will refuse to sell us oil. Either way, it will have a positive influence on oil prices.
II) Spending money on troop movement is wasting it. In the long haul, Imperial troops will probably not be able to enforce a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis, anyway. That money could be better spent resolving the energy problem, which would eventually achieve the same goal, but with much fewer Imperial casualties.
So, do I expect this idea to be taken seriously? Not really. And I'm proposing it as more of a thought experiment than anything else. But it's interesting to see the pro's and con's: cheaper fuel, an Imperial withdrawal from Iraq, and a massive Imperial economic resurgence vs. a definite economic disruption, massive civilian casualties in the short run (in Iraq), and another century of Imperial dominance over the economies of the rest of the world. . .
(1) This is very, very important. It is one thing to convert the Imperial Energy Economy, but it would be another thing to totally change the way the global uses energy. Imagine an electrified Sudan, or a Colombia in which clean fuels brought TVs into every village, or a Middle East with air conditioning in every home. . .
I still believe most of what is here, but I'm not as angry and determined about it as I was last week. I think that it's more interesting in an unedited form (these are basically notes I made for myself), and, after all, I'm trying to achieve some level of deeper interaction with you, Gentle Reader, so here it is.
And for the record, I had this idea before I read Thomas Friedman's column, but I pretty much agree with him.
Here's what I'd like to see from the upcoming Presidential Domestic Debate:
An economic policy which shifts the Imperial economy away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources of energy, effective immediately.
A Step-By-Step Guide to Reducing Oil Dependence
1) Adjust Demand: Ronnie says "Supply Side"
Cut off demand for oil at the consumer level by increasing the price per gallon to unreasonable rates, and make sure that they stay that way for a long time. First, enact a higher Federal Gas Tax. Second, force the States to enact minimum additional charges as a percentage of the Federal Gas Tax; let them spend most of this money at their discretion.
Second, increase the price per gallon by restricting supply. Boycott oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran (which we already are), and other countries which disagree with our policies. This is not really such a bad idea: it's a great way to try to pry some human rights reforms out of notoriously negligent governments. Make the human rights trade penalties cumulative and compounding. (Maybe begin with import ratios and tariffs, then work up to full economic disengagement.) Set uncomfortably optimistic goals and hope for real change. Let the U.N., W.T.O., and W.H.O. arbitrate disputes over whether these targets have been achieved.
The point is to drive the price of gasoline and other fossil fuels up. When they stop being cost-effective, fossil fuels will be abandoned wholesale. The trick is balance: do not go too slowly, or else the economy will adjust to a higher nominal energy rate; but do not rush, either, or else the economy could stall out with unknowable consequences.
2) Invent Alternatives: Give Peas a Chance
Spend all this new revenue on developing alternative fuel sources. This would probably be pretty obvious, but it may be trickier than we can imagine. It would be critical to ensure that the Gas Tax revenues and tariffs did not end up in the General Fund, but that they are instead used exclusively to promote energy alternatives and enforce energy policy.
Attack the problem of an alternative energy economy from both the public and private sectors. Hand out cash hand-over-fist to anyone doing research on this issue (and don't forget the Humanities -- understanding the economics and sociology of the economy change will be at least as important as having it happen quickly). Get the Imperial labs to hack out the basic science: what sources are the most practical, give the best yield, etc. Then throw the ball to the private sector to make the technology affordable and efficient. Set high standards on efficiency, pollution, and cost and make sure that goals are met. (It's important that the new technology be greener, cheaper, and more readily available than the old.)
In the process, do not shortchange research options. The government should retain the rights to all technologies until a public implementation has become commonplace, when the technology (or technologies) must enter the public domain. This allows market competition to progress at an accelerated pace and will prevent energy monopolies from controlling a new energy economy. (On the other hand, once economic changeover has been completed, it is vital that companies be given the opportunity to maintain their own proprietary patents -- otherwise, production and quality will stall.)
3) Adoption: Twins from China
With the money left over from the Gasoline Funds (if there is any) goes to subsidizing the new Alternative Energy Economy. Money goes to public transportation systems making the energy switch, citizens who want to convert their homes and cars, and small companies to convert their infrastructure. Pay for half of all fuel-station conversions, if necessary.
Moreover, make this technology available to the rest of the world.(1)
The purpose of a quick adoption policy would be to get the Imperial economy back on track as quickly as possible, obviously. However, a potential side effect could be the a resurgence in Imperial manufacturing and technology preeminence. After all, we could let China develop the technology first, but then they would get all the licensing fees, wouldn't they?
4) The Trade-Offs: Cataclysmic Economic Events and You
The possibilities for collapse in this idea are numerous. First, the Federal government has never had this much control over the American economy at any time in history. This process would create a temporary government monopoly in the energy sector, something that is certainly a political liability. Furthermore, Congress does not have the necessary independence to unilaterally destroy the current energy systems -- the energy lobby would quash it in committee, long before the plan came to a vote.
Secondly, a disruption in the process would leave the Empire without any Energy Economy, with potentially disastrous, unknowable consequences. During the adjustment period, transportation systems, public services, and even government could possibly be disrupted. Certainly, the initial squeeze on oil prices would drive the airline industry to the brink of bankruptcy (again), and would likely destroy the airline industry as we know it today. Tourism, goods transport, and other service industries would likely be severely hit, although the long-term gains from cheap, renewable energy would probably offset any short-term losses (over 10 years, or so).
Finally, if this Shock Treatment did not work, left a bizarre hodge-podge of proprietary, incompatible systems which prevented consumers from traveling, using simple appliances, it would result in a total collapse. Although this is the accepted status quo of the computer industry (different, incompatible standards, various levels of adoption, and a cost which prices the poor out of ownership), energy would definitely prove to be more basic and much more consequential.
5) The Benefits
An environmentally friendly, socially equitable, cheap, readily available, and globally available energy source would change the world in ways we cannot imagine, but here are some quick points:
a) World Politics -- the end of OPEC; the fall of the Oil Kingdoms of the Middle East, and possibly a subsequent détente between Israel and the Arab world;
b) World Economics -- egalitarian pricing would ensure expansion of energy-dependent services in the Third World, including health care and transportation;
c) Imperial Politics -- a substantial boost in the power of environmentalists, with the possibility of a major coalition of "Green" candidates within one or both parties;
d) Information Technology -- internet, TV, and telephone access to billions of people around the world; the internet would triple in content and usage (assuming equal access by the 2 billion people who live in "wired" countries today);
Over the short term, an alternative economy would allow the Empire to withdraw from the Middle East. This would go a long way towards paving the way for a more moderate Arab world. Over the short term, the current Oil Kingdoms would be replaced by radical regimes, but as oil supply diminished, governments there would be forced to modernize and diversify their economies, which would bring about moderation in the long run. The ultimate goal would be a renunciation of terrorism and the adoption of human rights in even the most conservative areas of the world. The catch is that no government would have no choice: if a renewable energy technology was available, the people of every country would demand access to it.
A) Caveat: Abandon Iraq
And do it tomorrow. Better yet, do it yesterday. Iraq is a monetary sinkhole that will bankrupt the Empire if not controlled. The best position in the short term is to abandon the situation because:
I) If an insurgent government controls oil production, either a) we will refuse to buy oil from them, or b) they will refuse to sell us oil. Either way, it will have a positive influence on oil prices.
II) Spending money on troop movement is wasting it. In the long haul, Imperial troops will probably not be able to enforce a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis, anyway. That money could be better spent resolving the energy problem, which would eventually achieve the same goal, but with much fewer Imperial casualties.
So, do I expect this idea to be taken seriously? Not really. And I'm proposing it as more of a thought experiment than anything else. But it's interesting to see the pro's and con's: cheaper fuel, an Imperial withdrawal from Iraq, and a massive Imperial economic resurgence vs. a definite economic disruption, massive civilian casualties in the short run (in Iraq), and another century of Imperial dominance over the economies of the rest of the world. . .
(1) This is very, very important. It is one thing to convert the Imperial Energy Economy, but it would be another thing to totally change the way the global uses energy. Imagine an electrified Sudan, or a Colombia in which clean fuels brought TVs into every village, or a Middle East with air conditioning in every home. . .
<< Home